Barriers to accessibility of medicines for hyperlipidemia in low- and middle-income countries.

Despite the high burden of hyperlipidemia and the effectiveness of treatment, evidence suggests that the accessibility of hyperlipidemia medicines can be low in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to identify common barriers to the accessibility of medicines for hyperlipidemia in LMICs. A multimethod analysis and multiple data sources were used to assess the accessibility and barriers of medicines for hyperlipidemia in selected LMICs. The overall median availability of statins for hyperlipidemia in public facilities was 0% and 5.4%, for originators and generics, respectively. In private facilities, median availability was 13.3% and 35.9%, for originators and generics, respectively. Statin availability was lowest in Africa and South-East Asia. Private facilities generally had higher availability than public facilities. Statins are less affordable in lower-income countries, costing around 6 days' wages per month. Originator statins are less affordable than generics in countries of all income-levels. The median cost for statin medications per month ranges from a low of $1 in Kenya to a high of $62 in Mexico, with most countries having a median monthly cost between $3.6 and $17.0. The key informant interviews suggested that accessibility to hyperlipidemia medicines in LMICs faces barriers in multiple dimensions of health systems. The availability and affordability of statins are generally low in LMICs. Several steps could be implemented to improve the accessibility of hyperlipidemia medicines, including private sector engagement, physician education, investment in technology, and enhancement of health systems.

Scaling hypertension treatment in 24 low-income and middle-income countries: economic evaluation of treatment decisions at three blood pressure cut-points.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the incremental costs and benefits of scaling up hypertension care in adults in 24 select countries, using three different systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment cut-off points-≥140, ≥150 and ≥160 mm Hg. INTERVENTION: Strengthening the hypertension care cascade compared with status quo levels, with pharmacological treatment administered at different cut-points depending on the scenario. TARGET POPULATION: Adults aged 30+ in 24 low-income and middle-income countries spanning all world regions. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. TIME HORIZON: 30 years. DISCOUNT RATE: 4%. COSTING YEAR: 2020 USD. STUDY DESIGN: DATA SOURCES: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's Epi Visualisations database-country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence, prevalence and death rates. Mean SBP and prevalence-National surveys and NCD-RisC. Treatment protocols-WHO HEARTS. Treatment impact-academic literature. Costs-national and international databases. OUTCOME MEASURES: Health outcomes-averted stroke and myocardial infarction events, deaths and disability-adjusted life-years; economic outcomes-averted health expenditures, value of averted mortality and workplace productivity losses. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: Across 24 countries, over 30 years, incremental scale-up of hypertension care for adults with SBP≥140 mm Hg led to 2.6 million averted CVD events and 1.2 million averted deaths (7% of expected CVD deaths). 68% of benefits resulted from treating those with very high SBP (≥160 mm Hg). 10 of the 12 highest-income countries projected positive net benefits at one or more treatment cut-points, compared with 3 of the 12 lowest-income countries. Treating hypertension at SBP≥160 mm Hg maximised the net economic benefit in the lowest-income countries. LIMITATIONS: The model only included a few hypertension-attributable diseases and did not account for comorbid risk factors. Modelled scenarios assumed ambitious progress on strengthening the care cascade. CONCLUSIONS: In areas where economic considerations might play an outsized role, such as very low-income countries, prioritising treatment to populations with severe hypertension can maximise benefits net of economic costs.

Building the health-economic case for scaling up the WHO-HEARTS hypertension control package in low- and middle-income countries / Argumentos de la economía de la salud para ampliar las medidas de control de la hipertensión de la iniciativa HEARTS de la OMS en los países de ingresos medianos y bajos / Ampliação do pacote de controle da hipertensão OMS-HEARTS em países de baixa e média renda: argumentos a partir da perspectiva da economia em saúde

ABSTRACT Generally, hypertension control programs are cost-effective, including in low- and middle-income countries, but country governments and civil society are not likely to support hypertension control programs unless value is demonstrated in terms of public health benefits, budget impact, and value-for-investment for the individual country context. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) established a standard, simplified Global HEARTS approach to hypertension control, including preferred antihypertensive medicines and blood pressure measurement devices. The objective of this study is to report on health economic studies of HEARTS hypertension control package cost (especially medication costs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact and describe mathematical models designed to translate hypertension control program data into the optimal approach to hypertension care service delivery and financing, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Early results suggest that HEARTS hypertension control interventions are either cost-saving or cost-effective, that the HEARTS package is affordable at between US$ 18-44 per person treated per year, and that antihypertensive medicines could be priced low enough to reach a global standard of an average <US$ 5 per patient per year in the public sector. This health economic evidence will make a compelling case for government ownership and financial support for national scale hypertension control programs.

RESUMEN En general, los programas de control de la hipertensión son costo-eficaces, incluso en los países de ingresos bajos y medios. Aun así, es poco probable que los gobiernos nacionales y la sociedad civil apoyen los programas de control de la hipertensión a menos que se demuestre su valor en términos de beneficios para la salud pública, impacto presupuestario y valor de la inversión para el contexto individual del país. La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) implementaron la iniciativa HEARTS, un enfoque mundial estandarizado y simplificado para el control de la hipertensión, que incluye los medicamentos antihipertensivos y los dispositivos de medición de la presión arterial de preferencia. El objetivo de este estudio es informar sobre los estudios en el ámbito de la economía de la salud relativos al costo de las medidas de control de la hipertensión previstas en HEARTS (especialmente, de los medicamentos), la costo-efectividad y el impacto presupuestario, así como describir los modelos matemáticos diseñados para traducir los datos de este programa en un enfoque óptimo para la prestación y el financiamiento de los servicios de atención de la hipertensión, especialmente en países de ingresos medianos y bajos. Los primeros resultados indican que las intervenciones de HEARTS para el control de la hipertensión son de bajo costo o costo-eficaces, que el conjunto de medidas HEARTS es asequible, a un precio que oscila entre US$ 18 y US$ 44 al año por paciente tratado, y que los medicamentos antihipertensivos podrían tener un precio lo suficientemente bajo como para alcanzar un estándar medio mundial de <US$ 5 por paciente al año en el sector público. Estos datos del ámbito de la economía de la salud serán argumentos convincentes para que los gobiernos se involucren en los programas de control de la hipertensión a escala nacional y les brinden apoyo financiero.

RESUMO Geralmente, os programas de controle de hipertensão são custo-efetivos, inclusive em países de baixa e média renda, mas os governos dos países e a sociedade civil provavelmente não apoiarão tais programas a menos que demonstrem valor em termos de benefícios à saúde pública, impacto orçamentário e retorno sobre o investimento no contexto individual do país. A Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) e a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS) criaram a Global HEARTS, uma abordagem padrão e simplificada ao controle da hipertensão arterial, que inclui medicamentos anti-hipertensivos preferidos e dispositivos para aferição da pressão arterial preferidos. O objetivo deste estudo é relatar os estudos de economia em saúde que analisaram o custo (especialmente custos de medicamentos), custo-benefício e impacto orçamentário do pacote HEARTS para controle da hipertensão e descrever modelos matemáticos elaborados para traduzir os dados do programa de controle de hipertensão em uma abordagem ideal para a prestação e financiamento de serviços de atenção às pessoas com hipertensão, especialmente em países de baixa e média renda. Os primeiros resultados sugerem que as intervenções HEARTS para controle da hipertensão são de baixo custo ou custo-efetivas, que o pacote HEARTS é acessível (custando de US$ 18 a 44 por pessoa tratada por ano) e que o preço dos medicamentos anti-hipertensivos poderia ser baixo o suficiente para atingir uma média global de <US$ 18 por paciente por ano no setor público. Estas evidências do campo da economia em saúde serão um argumento convincente para que os governos se responsabilizem por programas de controle de hipertensão em escala nacional e os dotem de recursos financeiros.